PvXwiki talk:Criteria for Speedy Deletion
Please add to the list as you see fit. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 05:31, 4 November 2007 (CET) Why is this needed? Do we really need a policy for the blatantly obvious? [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 13:03, 4 November 2007 (CET) Yes. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 22:38, 4 November 2007 (CET) :/agree. --- [[User:Ressmonkey|'Ressmonkey']] [[User Talk:Ressmonkey|(talk)]] 01:23, 10 November 2007 (CET) Like Grinch said, this is completely and utterly unnecesary as it states something that's so blatently obvious. That being said, what it does say is correct, so I don't see any harm in moving this to an actual policy as opposed to a failed proposal.Bob fregman 01:03, 27 November 2007 (CET) :I see harm in it. It risks creating a precedent that sysops need policy to say they can delete things quickly to be able to do so. --[[User:Edru_viransu|'Edru viransu']]//[[User_talk:Edru_viransu|'QQ about me']]/sysop 16:52, 28 December 2007 (EST) ::Add note saying "this is not intended to set a precendent for what sysops choose to delete quickly, but merely to inform users what qualifies as a canidate for speedy deletion". — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 23:17, 5 January 2008 (EST) PvX:WIZARDBOY777 anyone? --20pxGuildof 16:49, 22 January 2008 (EST) :I say PvX:WIZZARD (Wizzardboy777 seems tad too long...)PheNaxKian (T/ ) 16:52, 22 January 2008 (EST) :: *Wizard -- Armond Warblade 23:09, 22 January 2008 (EST) You guys can say its the blatanty obvious, but ive recently had a decent build just deleted straight away, with no notification, reason, or anything. I want to know who did it and why... the build was R/A Scavenger's Blossom Lukejohnson 12:31, 6 March 2008 (EST) :A ranger with daggers I guess? These r pretty bad. [[User:Dark_Morphon|'Dark']] [[User_talk:Dark_Morphon|'Morphon']] 13:43, 19 March 2008 (EDT) ::Not needed because in short, admins follow this policy anyway. Current list is blatantly obvious and those things when tagged are often deleted within an hour in my experience. Above user complaint is irrelevant as that specific incident comes under PvX:WELL anyway. We have a lot of policies "under consideration" at the moment, is it time to move some of them to failed? - image:miserysig1.jpgisery -TALK 09:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT) I'd like to see the policy minus the "whenever administrators deem fit" part. I know that people do stupid stuff but imo power goes to the head pretty fast on the internet in general.Under Gunned 17:48, 5 May 2008 (EDT) :Read PvX:ADMIN, Administrators are already empowered to delete a page (or do quite a bit of other things for that matter) on a whim if they so desire. Of course, they can be overruled/challenged, I'm merely pointing out that "whenever administrators deem fit" is how we essentially run things at the moment, and it has worked pretty well. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 17:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT) ::Oh okay, this probobly isn't really needed then. It would be nice if there could be some kind of reasoning/notification that occures when stuff gets bombed though tbh. atm ppl have to fish through the recent changes if they want to find the person they need to contact in order to find out why I build was nuked/WELLed as Lukejohnson mentioned.Under Gunned 22:17, 5 May 2008 (EDT) Failed? Anyone got any objections about moving to failed? PheNaxKian Sysop 10:47, 13 September 2008 (EDT) :Well, this is viable if a write-up is done, imo. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 11:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT) ::well I just figured that we delete anything that seems like it should be anyway. If there's something that urgently needs deleting, it can be brought up on an admins talk, or even the AN, if no-one sees it. But if people still want this policy/guideline, then perhaps a template to say this needs deleting quickly or something (would have a category obv.). PheNaxKian Sysop 07:43, 21 September 2008 (EDT) ::It should be a guideline, rather than policy. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 02:00, 25 September 2008 (EDT) :::how about adding to PvX:DELETE?, we could add something like PvX:SPEEDY (or SPEED) as the tag for linking to that section. PheNaxKian Sysop 14:16, 27 September 2008 (EDT) Vetting For *Needs better write up, and is pretty obvious, but makes sense.----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳimage:Shadowsin_sig.PNG 17:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT) *Again, needs good write up but this should be here. -- Jebuscontests 16:15, 7 November 2008 (EST) Against *Merge this in with another policy. Quantity does not equal quality and only exaccerbates the issue of having new people read a million policies or having them become acquainted with more. Just toss it into some other policy. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 12:06, 9 December 2008 (EST) *Agree with Grinch. Also, if administrators can delete anything they dim necessary, why even have a list of the obvious? 19px[[User:Victoryisyours|'Victory']][[User talk:Victoryisyours|'is']] 14:48, 9 December 2008 (EST) Random thought Shouldn't sysop be able to determine wether it is "speedy"? >.>" --'› Srs Beans ' 14:50, 9 December 2008 (EST) :this is probably more for users than Admins. (so if something gets deleted instantly and you have no idea why you could check against this list, but still, pointless...). I think what will happen is we'll stick it into PvX:DELETE or something... ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 15:52, 9 December 2008 (EST) ::I heard there was this brand new feature called the edit summary. You can check it out. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 19:05, 9 December 2008 (EST) :::Just kill this imho. - Misery Is Friendly 19px 07:44, 10 December 2008 (EST)